Have you been hiding under a rock? Or do you just think that this thoroughly obtuse rhetorical point carries any water?Can someone explain why the ones that supposedly want government to interfere as little as possible in their life would want to give it such power over the toughest decision they’ll probably have to make?
Well no one answers that question because it's largely hypothetical. Obviously changes would need to happen, but we don't really know the scope of how much additional infrastructure would be required. I mean, we still keep getting fed blatant lies like "1 out of every 5 children in America goes hungry," on commercials. Yeah, they go hungry... before dinner time. Then the vast majority of them are fed and are put to bed.Wait, that is a baby too. Or is it no longer a baby because of the circumstances of conception. That is just a hollow concession that is so rare it is barely even worth discussing. Same with when people add incest into it
Let me be very clear, there needs to be a timetable. No I do not think it should take months for someone to decide to end a pregnancy. I really don't even have a problem with the six week deal. I do have a problem with people pushing their version of morality on others. I have an even bigger problem with the close minded way nobody wants to discuss the consequences of that many dumb asses bringing kids into this world that are unwanted. If you want to be pro-life than answer the question what next. But nobody does.
In the not too distant future when these babies can be healthily grown in test tubes, this probably could happen and would end the debate.So for you when does it become a "living human being"?
Tell you what, cygots can be replanted, why don't all those opposing abortion line up, pay for the procedure and carry those babies to term?
This post in particular is spot on. Well said, man.Have you been hiding under a rock? Or do you just think that this thoroughly obtuse rhetorical point carries any water?
Hey, how come all you libertarians are in favor of laws against murder? I thought you didn't want the government to be interfering with people's lives! Durr.
The abortion debate is not about a woman's right. Everyone agrees that women deserve the right to make decisions regarding their body.
But just as is the case with every time one right infringes on another right, it requires the government (and in fact is the only real legitimate function of government) to sort out whose rights come with higher priority. Yes, you can listen to whatever music you want.... but you can't blare it so loud that it keeps your neighbors up at all hours of the night. Etc.
The abortion debate is quite simply that pro-life people believe that a fetus is a living human deserving of human rights and pro-abortionists believe that either it's not a living thing yet or that it's a living thing that is not deserving of human rights. Either of those latter positions is mind boggling to me, but as the point at which life begins cannot be entirely resolved by science at this point, it's simply not ever going to be agreed upon by the differing sides.
All the other miscellaneous points (how much it will cost to pay for all these new unmurdered children, whether they have birth defects, whether it leads to a better society, etc) is all completely irrelevant if the main argument is that a fetus is a living human deserving of human rights. You don't murder poor people or disabled people simply because they are a drain on society. Setting aside the general "rightness" of it, they are entitled to due process, they are entitled to life, liberty and property, etc. Reproductive rights would be unarguably subverted to the right to life, liberty and property, it's not even a serious debate, it's a laughable one.
But if a fetus is not a living human deserving of those rights, then obviously all that goes out the window. Problem is, obviously a newly born baby is entitled to all those rights. And so a T-minus 10 minutes baby is also due all those rights. And so is a T-minus one week baby, etc. Emergence from the uterus is clearly not the defining characteristic.
But until we agree on what is the defining characteristic, this will continue to be a fight. The problem with the opposing side's argument is that even if they say a lump of cells without a heartbeat isn't a human, it soon WILL be.
As such, unrestricted abortion's days are numbered, because you can't be a honest, intelligent jurist and not come to this conclusion.
I hear you, man. I had the great privilege of witnessing 6 of my offspring being born. My mind cannot conceive eliminating a human for any of the lame justifications that are put forth.When I was younger I probably would have said let women do with their bodies what they want. Now that I have a little daughter of my own the thought of abortion really kind of sickens me. And I have seen it now from the side of men who want the baby and a woman can just terminate it anyway. I'm just not good with it.